Not any more. The HCRB has minimum standards that health insurance plans have to cover, and companies with 50 or more employees must provide health insurance or else pay a recurring fee.
This is a natural outcome of that bill since I could start up an insurance company and sell “health insurance” for $5/year that consisted of giving my customers band aids whenever they are bleeding and that would satisfy the requirement that everyone have insurance.
I suspect this issue will go to the SCOTUS and suspect Obama will lose. Birth Control is not an essential part of health insurance, and so the government has no compelling reason to make employers provide it when it violates the religious principles of those employers. We’re not talking life or death here.
I think in general I agree with you (although not about the SCOTUS decision - I think Congress is well within its bounds in regulating health insurance coverage).
I just wanted to point out that in a world-view that equates abortion with murder the lack of access to effective contraception is a matter of life and death.
So Notre Dame doesn’t want to pay insurance premiums for plans that cover birth control for their students of employees. They feel its like having a big bowl of condoms in the nurses office.
I suppose that universal access to contraception has a significant enough public purpose then I guess it overrides the religious ruthers of a Jesuit college.
I like the conscientious objector analogy. I don’t get to reduce my tax bill by 20% to remove funding for the military, we all end up funding shit we don’t like.
This was the topic on Diane Rheem this morning, so I’m not surprised it’s on the net today. The general idea of employers who offer health insurance not being allowed to gut provisions at will is problematic. Employers do this all the time. Some restrict mental health care, some restrict dental care, some restrict prescription coverage, inpatient stays, etc. The customization of health packages being offered to employees in an employer-sponsored group plan is de rigueur.
What is being proposed is regulating on the voluntary choice of an employer to restrict access to reproductive health coverage for a certain class of reproductive health products. The argument is generally that reproductive health is a fundamental right like emergency care and no one should be allowed to provide a product which doesn’t have provisions for it. The counter argument is no one should be forced to pay for a product which offends their religious sensibilities.
I personally want the church to prevail here. Anything that drives another wedge in this ridiculous employer-provided insurance system we have brings it that much closer to crumbling and being replaced with something sensible. If access to reproductive care is a basic right then it should be guaranteed by society, not by private employers. The people have a means of doing it through their democratic government, so let them do it.
I’ve only begun to research this but I believe you’re mistaken. Fpr one thing , it seems to me that most insuranbce companies would be willing to cover ontraceptives for monetary reasons, since it would be cheaper than a pregnancy. In fact Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives | Guttmacher Institute
PDF,
a lot of states have already required insurance companies to cover contraceptives. It’s not a new thing. The difference now seems to be that there are fewer exemptions and the requirement to pay for all of it. That’s not the issue here.
I’m not under the impression that NO insurance comapny would offer policies that do not include contreceptives, but in most cases that would not be economically wise. Can you provide an example or two?
Your comment about contreceptives being available in public bathrooms is ridiculous. We’re talkin about prescription drugs and insurance companies and in this case an employer saying, we’ll cover drugs approved by the FDA but not these.
I’d be interested in the details , but for now I’m under the impression that the church used it’s financial clout to get a policy written for thier employees that exculdes contreception , which IMO is totally inconsistent reasoning on thier part.
The question is , is it a violation of thier religious freedom to not grant them an exemption from federal regulations on insurance companies.
I say no because nobody is requireing them to directly pay for contraception. They are only being told they cannot manipulate the regulations to get a custom policy. Additionally, the same logic that frees them of any complicity when thier employees purchase contraceptives with their paychecks frees them from complicity on the insurance side as well. It is more accurately, they who are rather arbitraily applying thier beliefs for no good reason.
Yes it is a violation insomuch as telling religions they cannot perform human sacrifices or practice polygamy anymore is a violation. In other words, its a correct and proper violation.
Religion doesn’t get a free hand to do whatever it wants. It still needs to follow the law when basic human rights come up against denominational religious rights.
Lots of health issues covered by insurance are not a matter of life and death. Considering the risk and health issues associated with pregnancy contreception is very much an issue.
The issue for me is the very premise that the government is forcing employers to provide contraception is a false one. If employers have no expectation of controling what thier employees do with thier paychecks, why should they try to control the choices available from an insurance company. They are paying for health insurance period. End of thier moral and religious involvement. It’s then between the insurance company and the employee.
Why is it that when insurance companies are mandated to provide things that you agree with, those things are “reasonable limitations,” but when it comes to coverage you don’t agree with, it’s “reduc[ing] freedom”? Sauce for the goose, and all that. This all seems to fall under the general heading of regulating coverage baselines, to me.
Contraception has been a pretty uncontroversial topic in the US for at least several decades now, even among most Americans who identify as very religious.
It seems to me that what we’re seeing is nothing but manufactured outrage in an attempt to produce a wedge issue and fit the narrative that Obama is at “war with religion”.
True, the “life or death” test is too strict. But pregnancy isn’t a disease, and contraception is readily available for anyone who wants it. For the government to compel an employer, against his religious beliefs, to provide an employee with a product, there has to be some compelling public interest that must be served for that fly, given the 1st amendment.
Not buying that argument. The Church’s money is going directly to the insurance companies. The Church is actually buying the product and that product violates the beliefs of the Church.
The government has never required the Church to provide its employees with birth control. There was originally a religious exemption in the HCRB, and now the Obama administration is taking that exemption away. It’s not a valid argument to pretend like nothing changed and this is just a wedge issue.
If I pay you money and you use it to buy illegal drugs, I have no liability for your purchase. If I purchase illegal drugs and give them to you as payment, I do have liability. Why do you think that is? I haven’t used the drugs myself. I just gave them to you as payment instead of cash.
There’s no basic human right to have the government require your insurance company to pay for your preferred method of birth control.
I think John Mace has already given an adequate answer to this question, explaining that an insurance company which doesn’t offer contraception harms no one, while an insurance company that doesn’t pay for live-saving care does harm people.
There are legitimate medical uses for the pill besides contraception.
Complications of pregnancy are also common and can be life-threatening. Presumably, some women know they’re at risk because of previous pregnancies or a diagnosis from a doctor.
The churches money is also going directly to employees who are using it to buy contreceptives on their own. What’s the difference? The insurance is essentially part of the employees pay. The employer has no way of knowing that the insurance portion of the employees pay will go to contraceptives. They are simply arbitrarily removing an option for no good reason, and just shifting where the money for contraceptives comes from. Either way, wages or insurance, it comes from them. They can’t control their employees personal choices and there’s no good reason to try and control them in some feeble way through insurance to reduce thier choices there.
It’s not quite that simple but yes things have changed. That doesn’t speak to the good or bad of it either way. Church’s don’t have free reign to do whatever they want to under the umbrella of religious freedom, not should they.
Except as others have pointed out, that isn’t so. Insurance companies routinely provide routine care , and pregnancy is certainly a legitimate health concern.
The difference is that once the employee receives the money, it no longer belongs to the Church. You’re essentially saying that the Church should be OK buying anything for its employees that the Employees would buy for themselves. Do you think the Church should have no problem buying gift certificates to the Mustang Ranch for employees who like to spend their paychecks there?
Not anymore. It’s mandated by the government. The Church can opt out by paying a recurring fine, but that money, too, is going to the same place.
It can reasonably expect that it will. And there’s one way to make certain that it doesn’t-- let the Church have an exemption.
Religious freedom is part of the 1st amendment. I wouldn’t call that “no good reason”.
Again, your “shifting the money” argument doesn’t hold water. It can be used to justify anything. Might as well buy you kids crack if you know they’ll use their allowance to buy it. It’s just a matter of shifting the money around!
Here’s the thing. Most American families can afford birth control. We’re talking less than $100/month. If we, as a society, feel that poor women should get subsidized birth control, then we as a society should pay for it. Forcing a religious organization into a one size fits all solution to a problem affecting a minority of Americans is a mockery of the 1st Amendment.
Remind me again why is contraceptive considered “sinful” again?
Is it because of the church consider human intervention on reproduction?
Is it because they are afraid teenagers will go out bonk everything that move and thus commit extramarital sex?
or some other obscure reason I don’t know about. I ask this because without solid [Biblical] reasoning they can just say anything is sinful and refuse to comply with society on any issue.
I was just going to post about the religious exemption but see that the topic has already come up. In this article from the Washington Post and this one from Forbes, both from today, it seems as though the exemption is still in place. How is this being taken away?